Dubai Stu

I think the TSA is struggling with its core mission and are ill equipped to be expanding on it. When Arizona tried something similar, one thing that quickly emerged is that state cops were inadequately trained for the determining status.

On other parts of this forum, we've all complained about the caliber of person manning these checkpoints.

Immigration is a politically charged issue and both sides are posturing on it. My issue is frankly pragmatic. I don't want to be standing behind someone while the TSA is trying to figure out with a Mexican National with an F3 part time student visa (and appropriate Mexican ID) is allowed to board a plane to New York to participate in a school related program or whether a Canadian First Nationder is from a Treaty Tribe under the Jay Treaty of 1794 allowing them to live and work in the US without any visa.

Remember these are the guys who just a couple of months ago got in trouble because they thought a District of Columbia Driver's license was foreign:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...08b_story.html

We've talked about how many TSA agents had problems with Nexus, Sentri, and Global Entry cards as IDs. Politics aside, I think that this is a bad idea.

taipeipeter

Certainly the labor demand side is the driver of illegal immigration. That doesn't mean undocumented aliens are not "exploited"--often (not always) working at below minimum wage for excessive hours at dangerous as well as unpleasant jobs.

At least we can agree on their right to fly and the insanity of TSA.

catocony

If they're not armed, they are not a threat. You can spin tales of kung fu masters taking over a plane, but that's paranoid fantasy from the neo-con Right. As far as gang members "from the south", how do you know that you haven't sat next a criminal at some point in your travels? Again, you're equating criminal activity to ethnicity. Some hispanic guy who's been in the US picking vegetables for 2 years can sit by me anytime. Some 100% American racist from Alabama, I would prefer they sit elsewhere.

You're trying to make it sound like TSA grills people with ID but if you don't have ID, you get a free pass. That's not at all true.

NoMoreFlying

I thought the discussion was ID as security not the right for someone to be in the country.

The reason these people have a notice to appear is to plead their case to the court. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? Or do you not support the US legal system? Or just not in the case of immigrants?

Blogndog

No, the "crux" of the matter is that some xenophobes want different treatment. As extensively discussed previously in this thread, there is nothing "illegal" about being in the USA while waiting for an immigration hearing, which is the status of those who have been issued a 'Notice to Appear,' so if you want to contribute to the discussion rather than trying to confuse and obfuscate, then please stop using a term that has already been demonstrated to be inaccurate and inappropriate.

But as to your point, as also has been clearly established in the earlier discussion on this thread, there is a TSA policy and a TSA procedure for allowing people to fly without ID. That policy applies equally to all travellers. You are the only one on this thread advocating that a "different standard" ought to apply to immigrants.

Well, maybe because the alternative to "just let anyone on a plane" is to apply illegal and unjust discriminatory policies to who gets on a plane. What next? Allowing "just anyone" to come and order food at a lunch counter?

Blogndog

Well said -- only an idiot would think it's a good idea to create policies that rely on TSA agents being required to understand and manage more complexity for their success.

cbn42

Of course, but what does that have to do with boarding planes? As far as I know, there is no crime that makes you ineligible to board a plane, other than serious terrorist activities that put you on a no-fly list. On what legal basis can the government stop someone from boarding a plane because of an immigration violation, especially if they are awaiting a hearing?

Last I checked, Mexican law wasn't valid in the US, so I'm not sure what your point is here.

That policy may "apply" equally to all travellers, but it involves use of public records, which are usually obtained from credit reporting agencies. Many travellers would not have such records available, including most of the people who are the topic of this thread, plus many US citizens and legal residents.

naumank

It's illegal to be in the U.S. illegally. That means entering the country without a valid visa. Is it hard to understand?

Would you support everybody boarding a plane without an ID? If so, then there's nothing to talk about here.

Whether "FAIR" is a xenophobic organization is irrelevant here. What's important is whether the information is correct regarding their 9/11 terrorists. Are you saying it's inaccurate? Is so, please point it out before you do name calling. (In fact, I see a lot of name calling here - "right wing," "xenophobic," etc. Why can't we stick to the facts? If naming call wins an argument, then we should all be name-calling. But we are debating an issue here. Name calling is a fallacy in logic.)

Many of those hijackers were in illegal status when they committed the crime. But they were still allowed to board a plane. Hard to understand?

cbn42

This response is completely irrelevant to what I wrote, and to anything else being discussed in this thread.

It's illegal to drive over 65 mph on the freeway. Therefore, if someone receives a speeding ticket, should TSA subsequently allow them to board a plane? From a legal standpoint, that's about as much sense as your argument makes.

Blogndog

Refugees who have been given a 'notice to appear' are not in the country illegally -- why is that so difficult for you to understand?

It's been well established that the ID requirement exists solely as a revenue protection measure, and that it has no legitimate security purpose. I personally would enthusiastically support a prohibition against any government representative asking for ID for any purpose whatsoever.

WillCAD

No, it doesn't take an AK-47. All it takes is a Knee Defender and some soda, apparently.

But I'd really like to see an unarmed bad guy actually try to take over a plane. I'd actually love to be sitting next to that guy, because I'd have a ring-side seat to the worst beating since Mike Tyson bit that guy's ear off in the ring. Any idiot who tries to take over a plane in the US, with the levels of fear that the American public seems to carry around with them 24/7, is in for the worst whoopin' he's ever heard of. He'll be lucky to still be breathing by the time the plane lands.

As long as they've showered recently and don't talk my ear off or steal my peanuts, I probably wouldn't care. After all, I'd never know who or what my seatmate was unless he sits down next to me and introduces himself, "Hi, my name is Eladio, and I'm a mid-level manager for MS-13. I've murdered seven Mexican nationals, four Mexican cops, one American tourist, and a dog down the street who wouldn't quit yapping. How are you this fine morning?"

The crux of the matter is that the information on IDs is no more reliable than the information that the illegals give to CBP, hence showing an ID to get on a plane is no more reliable a way to weed out bad people than a CBP interview with someone caught sneaking over the border.

Illusions of 'public safety' do not override the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of movement within the country to ALL people. Not just white people, not just men, not just property owners, not just citizens, but ALL people in US jurisdiction have the right to freedom of movement. That freedom can only be stripped away by due process of law, not by vague suspicions, not because they don't choose to carry ID, and certainly not because someone has been accused of a crime but hasn't yet been convicted.

It is hard to fathom how America has completely lost sight of the importance of living in a free society, vs living in a society where rights and freedoms are something that the government only grants to the people on limited, conditional, often arbitrary basis.

The fact is, the US is a nation of law, and the ID requirement (not to mention the no-fly list, but that's a separate discussion) violates the highest one we have - the Constitution.

People with a notice to appear have not yet had their immigration hearing, and are thus here legally on a conditional basis, until that hearing. If the hearing judges them to be here illegally, then and only then will they be deported.

This is the law. You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Is that so hard to understand?

Darn tootin' I would support it. Why don't you? I can only assume it's because you believe the fairy tale that "ID matters" to security in some way, which a ridiculous idea that holds no merit whatsoever.

The current ID check, which doesn't check immigration status, no-fly list status, wants and warrants, credit score, or dental hygiene, would not have prevented the 9/11 hijackers from boarding the planes. It is completely, utterly useless for weeding out bad people with bad intentions from boarding the plane. Ever. Under any circumstance. It provides no security and no safety, yet it wastes a tremendous amount of time, money, and resources, while simultaneously violating the Constitutional rights of millions of people on a daily basis.

In other words, it does no good, but it does some harm.

Hard to understand?

starflyer

What does treatment of or attitudes toward migrants have to do with racism? The concern seems to be about people who are in the country illegally flying on planes, not people of a certain race.

WillCAD

To be perfectly candid, it IS all mixed together in many peoples' minds.

Brown people who speak Spanish come across the border from Mexico to the US. This leads those who are prone to bigotry anyway to generalize that all brown people who speak Spanish are illegal aliens.

Although racism doesn't dictate my own feelings toward illegal immigration, I cannot deny that it does for many Americans. It would be foolish to deny the reality, though personally I find that my skin crawls when such bigots try to agree with me on the subject.

cbn42

That is just your opinion. No court has ever made that determination.


No-fly list status is already checked in advance. The ID check is designed to make sure that the person flying has had their name compared against the list already.

GUWonder

The courts have said US persons have a right to travel, and it hasn't said that the right to travel excludes the right to travel as a passenger by air.

The current ID check -- by TDCs at the TSA screening checkpoint -- doesn't check the ID against the fly-lis.